Public Bill Committee

[David Taylorin the Chair]

Clause 22

Lump sum deduction orders

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 22, page 16, line 39, at end insert—
‘32I Freezing Orders
In circumstances considered appropriate by the Commission, the Commission shall have the power to make an application for a freezing order in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, part 25, and the Secretary of State may make provision—
(a) about the cases and circumstances in which the power under subsection (1) is exercisable, including provision restricting the exercise of that power by virtue of a change of circumstance;
(b) about the procedure in relation to the exercise of such power under subsection (1); and
(c) for any person affected to have a right of appeal to the High Court within seven days of the making of the order.’.
I hope that the Minister will have some sympathy with the spirit with which the amendment is moved, because clearly one of the major elements of the Bill and the Committee’s deliberations is enforcement—the need, recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, to strengthen the Child Support Agency’s ability to enforce its decisions. That ability relates to the CSA’s powers, how it uses those administratively and the amount of resources, effort and energy that goes into enforcement. The powers under clause 22 on lump sum deduction orders are one such method by which enforcement could be enhanced. The amendment simply suggests an additional tool that would strengthen yet further the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission’s ability to take lump sums when a case history proves that that is necessary.
The powers to make freezing orders apply under part 25 of the civil procedure rules, which the amendment would put on the face of the Bill. It would apply in a particular set of cases where, by enhancing the Bill’s provisions, CMEC would be given the power to freeze assets in limited circumstances if there is good reason to believe that a non-resident parent is attempting or intending to remove assets from the jurisdiction of the CSA.
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, has been dealing assiduously with a case that I have brought to his attention on a number of occasions, and I am grateful to him for his efforts. While the amendment’s provision would not necessarily relate directly to that case, it would certainly relate to a case where a non-resident parent has disappeared overseas. Although there are powers by which the Government are currently able to pursue such people, they are complex, difficult to use and rely on having good overseas relationships.
Admittedly, the number of cases where one would know for certain that a non-resident parent intended to leave the country as a way of getting out of their obligations and a freezing order could be used, once all other processes had been followed, may be a small. However, using a freezing order in those cases would prevent any assets from being removed until such time as the process of making a lump sum deduction order has gone through, ensuring that maintenance was paid before any remaining assets were taken out of the country. I hope that all members of the Committee think that that would be an appropriate thing to try to do. Freezing orders provide a way of doing that, and I hope that the amendment will be supported.

Mark Harper: I shall speak briefly and in the spirit with which the amendment was moved. I think that it would present a useful addition to the armoury of tools that CMEC would have at its disposal. It may, in those circumstances, be covered by other powers. I will welcome the Minister’s comments and am certainly supportive of the general thrust of the comments from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

Anne McGuire: I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for raising the issue addressed by the amendment because it gives us an opportunity, albeit briefly, to consider what additional powers will lead to a faster and stronger enforcement process. As he clearly identified, the freezing order granted by the court could be used to stop someone removing or dealing with assets that they own, including bank accounts. I suspect that many colleagues in the Committee will, at least at one point in their career, have come across someone who attempted to move the proceeds of a house sale out of the country before the Child Support Agency, as currently configured, could get its hands on the money to deal with maintenance arrears. As he said, where there is sufficient evidence that the non-resident parent intends to dispose of assets in order to avoid paying child maintenance, it may be useful to obtain a freezing order to stop them doing so.
However, we have to recognise that applying for a freezing order is a serious step and might sometimes be referred to as the nuclear option. It is complicated and expensive, and the decision is not to be taken lightly. The application would obviously have to be supported by sufficient evidence to convince a court that the order should be granted. For that reason, as the hon. Gentleman also said, it can and should only be used in very specific circumstances where there is factual evidence that the non-resident parent intends to dissipate assets. We probably all have experience of cases where that has happened.
However, there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary thinks that I have been far too soft with the Committee on the last two or three clauses, I ask hon. Members to give me and my ministerial colleagues the opportunity to look at the proposal and consider what has been said. We must also take into account that the civil procedure rules do not have an impact on Scotland and consider how we would manage the situation for the whole of Britain, not just for England.
Initial discussions with the Ministry of Justice have been very positive. However, we need to explore the amendment’s implications. We are willing to consider the proposal and we undertake to consult colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and others on whether the freezing orders could and should be a viable option for the commission. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which we may return to at a later stage.

Danny Alexander: I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. I would not say she was being soft; the purpose of these Committees is to share ideas. She rightly pointed out, as I should have done, that there is an issue relating to Scotland, and I look forward to further deliberations on the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Administrative liability orders

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 123A, in clause 23, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
‘The Commission shall give 14 days notice of an intention to make an administrative liability order and shall provide to the person who has failed to pay an amount of child support maintenance an account breakdown showing how the amount claimed has alleged to have become due and thereafter.’.
In practice, prior to an application being made for a liability order, the non-resident parent is usually informed that a level of arrears exists. However, when that information is provided, the non-resident parent is often not provided with a breakdown detailing how the alleged arrears have arisen. In that regard, the National Audit Office report of 2006 confirms that in 65 per cent. of cases where liability order applications were issued the calculations made were defective to some degree.
Liability orders are dealt with by the magistrates court in England and must be made if they are
“satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid”.
To ensure that payments are actually made, an account breakdown is often requested by the magistrates. If it is not available at the time of the court hearing, it is adjourned until that information has been provided.
I see no reason why the commission should not be placed under the same burden of proof to provide evidence of the alleged debt, especially when it is proposed that independent judicial scrutiny is to be removed and liability orders will be made by an individual within the commission. The amendment would ensure that as well as providing the person involved with a total sum there will be a breakdown of how the sum has been calculated.

Michael Weir: I have been listening carefully. There seems to be a slight difficulty. Will not the commission be providing the information to itself and then making the decision? The difference in the current system is that there is independent advice on the breakdown by the magistrates or sheriff court, but under this system it would appear that the commission is judge, jury and executioner all at the same time.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The amendment seeks to ensure that the person from whom the arrears are being sought is party to the breakdown. There is a wider point which may well come up in further amendments or under clause stand part. The point I am trying to make with this amendment is a narrower one: a breakdown should be provided and should be available to the parties to the case so that they can at least scrutinise and respond to it. That is both for fairness and because sometimes the absence of a breakdown is a cause in itself of further delay.

Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that mere publication, or at least making available to an individual a document explaining the breakdown, would provide some basis of audit trail? If the document was on the record, there could be no suggestion that the commission had made it all up itself and had then buried the records after a period of years.

Danny Alexander: I entirely agree. Given the sensitivity in these cases and the fact that we are talking about potentially significant sums and a range of other personal issues, having a degree of transparency within the system is important for claimants. Having the ability to seek independent appeals, the point made by the hon. Member for Angus, is also important. It is not covered by this amendment, but I hope that the issue will be addressed as our debate on the clause proceeds. That is pretty critical to ensuring that in these cases justice is done.

Mark Harper: One of the general points that we are very supportive of is whether the appeals mechanism can question the calculation. We decided not to table amendments on that; our amendments come in a later group. The hon. Gentleman made a sensible point. If the information is not available, non-resident parents could be in a Kafkaesque situation. They could be told that an amount of maintenance was liable, and the commission would be able to make the decisions about liability and enforcement of the order, but they might not be able to know how the calculation had been made, what they are being asked to pay and for what reason. The extra transparency would be valuable. It may be that the intention always was that it should be part of the process, but nothing is lost in having it spelled out. We are generally very supportive of the amendment.

Anne McGuire: I listened with interest to the contributions. I hope that I can give some comfort which may meet hon. Members’ concerns. Given our experience and that of our constituents with the CSA, we must all accept that there is an understandable lack of confidence in some of the processes. By the time the administrative liability order is issued, the non-resident parent will be fully aware that they owe an amount of child maintenance, and they will have had an opportunity to challenge the maintenance calculation when it was made. In other words, we are confident that the appeals ought to be in relation to the sanction rather than the amount of the calculation because we will already have gone through a process before we get to the point where a liability order has been made.
We do not envisage that the commission would issue a liability order without first seeking an explanation from the non-resident parent of their failure to pay and to make arrangements for clearing any arrears. It is certainly our intention that a liability order should be accompanied by an explanation of how the amount on the order has been calculated. We think that it should be for the commission to decide how that explanation is presented.
The point of moving to an administrative liability order is to streamline and speed up the enforcement process. Without going over old ground, that is our ultimate intention in the legislation, albeit that we recognise that it must be fair and transparent. We have already had that discussion. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, if we had to accept the amendment, we would be building in an additional 14-day delay, which would allow the non-resident parent more time to dispose of any assets if he had a mind to do so. Those are some of the issues that we discussed briefly in our debate on the previous clause.
When the liability order is made, the non-resident parent will have a period of time in which to pay or to lodge an appeal before it fully comes into force. The time limit will be set out in regulations, but is likely to be about one month. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues accept that by the point that the non-resident parent has a liability order enforced on him—it is mainly a “him”— he will have had ample opportunity to go through the calculations and see that they are fair. We think that it is reasonable that the appeal should be about the sanction and not about the calculation.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for her response and for recognising that it is important that the commission should ensure, throughout the process leading up to using the powers in the clause, that the non-resident parent should have had the opportunity to become fully aware of the breakdown of the calculations and the way in which they have been made. I am sure that the commission will take note of our remarks when seeking to work out its own practices, and we may well have the opportunity to debate that, perhaps in the form of regulations.

Anne McGuire: An additional piece of information for the hon. Gentleman is that we are seeking to introduce new procedures to beef up the robustness of the process. Trained officials will check thoroughly the case history and the amount of outstanding debt and concentrate on the accuracy of any figures that are presented to the non-resident parent. Their orders will then be signed off by a more senior official within the commission. With that slightly more detailed explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue on his way to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that additional assurance. I express the hope that the process will take a good deal less than 14 days, otherwise the Minister’s objection to the amendment with regard to time would be redundant. Given the assurance that she has offered, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in clause 23, page 17, line 16, leave out ‘32K’ and insert ‘20’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 128, 129, 134 and 130 to 133.

Anne McGuire: The amendments are tidy enough and make no substantial changes to their clauses. They remove the inconsistencies in the way various appeal rights and regulation-making powers for appeals against administrative liability orders are expressed in the Bill. Without the amendments there may be some confusion about those powers and, in particular, the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Since the drafting of the original child support legislation and the 2000 amendments, colleagues will know that responsibility for the Tribunals Service and the legislation relating to tribunals that hear child support appeals has passed to the Ministry of Justice. The route of appeal for administrative liability orders will be to appeal tribunals within the Tribunals Service. On reflection, it was considered that the appeal provisions would be best placed under the existing provisions in section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991 rather than within clause 23. Section 20 is concerned with appeals to appeal tribunals and is thus the logical place to put the provisions.
The amendments also make the consequential amendments necessary to clause 54. Those are necessary to ensure that the Bill and the 1991 Act are entirely consistent.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 128, in clause 23, page 17, line 17, leave out ‘32K’ and insert ‘20’.
No. 129, in clause 23, page 17, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 8 on page 18.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mark Harper: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in clause 23, page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 107, in clause 23, page 18, line 4, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
No. 111, in clause 25, page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 112, in clause 26, page 23, line 47, leave out subsection (4).
No. 113, in clause 27, page 29, line 39, leave out subsection 2D.
No. 114, in clause 28, page 31, line 39, leave out subsection A5.

Mark Harper: Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 are unnecessary, in the light of the Government amendments that we have just accepted.
Amendment No. 111 comes back to one of the points that the Minister raised in our discussions about the appeals process challenging the sanction and not the calculation. We felt that that was reasonable on administrative liability orders, but we wanted to test it on some of the more severe sanctions, such as those addressed by amendment No. 111. However, we felt that the sanctions on travel, which amendment No. 111 is about, and the sanctions of curfew and prison were sufficiently serious that allowing the commission to apply for those penalties without the court being allowed to look at how the calculation was reached would not be reasonable. On amendment No. 113, we felt that allowing a court to imprison someone while not allowing it to examine how the position had been reached is not sensible, given the seriousness of imprisonment.
We understand the Government’s concern that those in the “won’t pay” category will use the appeals process as a mechanism to string out the process. We tabled the probing amendments to see whether the Government have given any thought to situations in which somebody gets enmeshed in a process where the calculation had not been well done. I listened to the Minister’s earlier point about the robustness of the new processes, but we have not reached this situation without any history, and I am nervous about allowing somebody to be imprisoned and not allowing the court to have the option of looking at how that position was arrived at. That was the point of tabling a number of the amendments.
Turning to the other purpose behind the amendments, the proposal about prisons is the most serious issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire said earlier, we want to challenge the Government on whether they can make the calculation improvement process happen earlier than the sanctions. We have discussed whether it is appropriate to allow the much tougher sanctions, which we support in principle, to make sure that those who have responsibilities to their children fulfil them, or whether it is appropriate to introduce enforcement powers now, given that the new calculation processes that use the new data will not be available until later. We want to know whether the two processes can be introduced at the same time. We are probing the Government on whether the tougher sanctions should be available when the calculation processes are more robust and whether the courts should have the ability to examine the whole process and not just challenge the serious sanctions in respect of imprisonment.

Anne McGuire: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is saying that amendments Nos. 106 and 107 are no longer appropriate as a result of the previous Government amendments.
I turn to the other amendments that were marshalled initially in the group. Amendment No. 111 would give the court the power to question the maintenance calculation when considering an appeal by the non-resident parent against an order disqualifying him from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation. As I explained earlier, the non-resident parent has the right to appeal separately and earlier in the process against the level of the maintenance calculation that they must pay.
I wish to deal specifically with the comment about those who cannot pay, which would be part of the earlier process. Given our experience, I fully recognise that there might be a lack of confidence in some of the ways in which calculations were made in the past, but I have highlighted the fact that we accept that it is vitally important to have in place a robust process for the calculation of maintenance. When the new administrative liability order is imposed, the non-resident parent will have time to appeal to the court before it is implemented.
We do not believe that it is right to allow the non-resident parent to attempt to undermine the travel authorisation provisions by seeking to reopen issues. The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that it concerns a process—the calculation—that has been dealt with through its own route of operation that allows non-resident parents to have discussions with the commission. Having reached the point at which the calculation is considered to be accurate, we would then be allowing the whole issue to be opened up at a latter time in the process, such as when the travel authorisation provisions are being dealt with.

Mark Harper: I wish to clarify one point. In the process described by the Under-Secretary, all the previous discussions and appeals would have been with the commission. I referred earlier to some sanctions treating cases differently. Someone could be in prison when no independent person, other than within the commission, has been able to examine the process. I am nervous about that.

Anne McGuire: There are two options when dealing with the commission’s decisions, one of which is the independent case examiner route, while the other is judicial review. Although most of the processes can be dealt with from within the commission, the hon. Gentleman was fair to highlight the fact that there may be exceptional circumstances when someone is still not happy with the calculation. An alternative route exists to assess objectively whether or not the commission has made the right decision on the calculation. However, that is entirely different from allowing someone to seek to reopen the whole issue when the travel authorisation provisions are dealt with.
We also have to recognise our experience on such issues. There are those who, for whatever reason, would want to ensure that they delay and delay and delay as much as possible the imposition of a maintenance levy. We have sought to balance the fairness and transparency that we all want in the system to ensure that the non-resident parent is treated with justice and that children and parents with care get support.
May I pick up on a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman made on the new sanctions regulations? We anticipate introducing the regulations as soon as they are approved, assuming that the IT support is there and that staff training has been completed. Given the history, we want to ensure that we have introduced the proper systems and staff training. We anticipate that that is likely to be in about 2009.
May I also clarify that the maintenance calculation will be subject to a tribunal, as will the liability order before that later stage? As I mentioned earlier, we must separate the calculation and sanction issues.
Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 114 would enable the court, when hearing an application from the commission seeking a curfew, committal or disqualification from driving order to question the liability order and underlying maintenance calculation. Our view on that is the same as our view on the other amendments in the group. Suitable appeal mechanisms exist elsewhere in relation to the liability order and the maintenance calculation. Curfew, committal and disqualification from driving are intended to be measures of last resort, and we will not move to such sanctions from a standing start. A whole process will be in place to ensure that non-resident parents have ample opportunity to accept their responsibilities. Therefore, these are the measures of last resort. They should be imposed when a non-resident has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay their child maintenance. The hearing should be about establishing whether or not that is the case, and it should not be undermined by focusing on other issues.
I fear that the amendments have the potential to aid the non-resident parent who uses every opportunity to delay or avoid meeting their responsibilities to their children. I fully accept that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I fear that that would be the outcome if we were to accept them. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for the detail that she has provided about the process. I am pleased about the reassurance that there is no intention to use these rightly much tougher sanctions until the systems are in place to give people confidence that the calculations and the data are accurate. One of our earlier concerns was that we would be using more robust sanctions methods with ropey data, which would have been detrimental to the commission’s reputation. I am happy to accept the Under-Secretary’s assurances about the calculation process and therefore the travel and curfew sanctions. However, I still have the reservation that, if the commission applies to the court to have someone committed to prison, that could still be one of the defences that the person may have. I accept that some of the “won’t pay” non-resident parents who are trying to avoid their responsibilities will try to take such action. I have no sympathy with them, and that is certainly not the intention of the amendment. I am conscious of the assurances that have been given about the calculation process. However, if the reason for non-compliance with the order is that someone has a fundamental issue with the basis of calculation—

Anne McGuire: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are processes early in the procedure through which such misgivings can be voiced and dealt with? I fear that the amendment would muddy the water in appeals on sanctions. The calculation will have been dealt with earlier, and there will have been ample opportunity to test whether it was accurate. The appeal should concentrate on the appropriateness of the sanction to the principle of whether someone should pay maintenance to their child.

Mark Harper: I thank the Under-Secretary for that intervention. Will she run through the evidence that the commission will have to furnish to the court to demonstrate how the calculation was made and what processes have happened? That might help to reassure me to the extent that I would not press amendment No. 113 and the others in the group. The court will have to satisfy itself that the right processes have been undertaken, and there will need to be an opportunity to challenge the assessment. Non-resident parents who are still challenging the payment will need assurance about those processes, and confidence that the figures are right. If the court can assure itself in that regard, it will be able to agree to the order for committal to prison with the confidence that there will not be an injustice.

David Taylor: Order. The Under-Secretary may wish to respond. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a further speech I shall call him again.

Anne McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should have appreciated that because we are in Committee I can respond in far more detail. Obviously, if the commission took a non-compliance case to court, it would be incumbent on it to garner all material about the way in which the relevant person had been dealt with. That way, the court could be satisfied that every opportunity was given to the non-resident parent to accept his responsibility to his child—or, in a minority of cases, her responsibility to her child.
We do not anticipate court action on a whim. We will ensure that all the processes that we have mentioned are undertaken in the interests of fairness and transparency. Under the current system, the court does not reopen the maintenance calculation, and in many respects the procedure is not new. Nevertheless, I should be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman more detail on the approach that the commission will take in going to court and to write to hon. Members with that information, which obviously I do not have to hand at this juncture.
We should recognise that we are talking about compliance with the order to pay maintenance to the child and not the calculation. We are in danger of getting bogged down in the arithmetic, rather than addressing whether a non-resident parent is trying to avoid their responsibility to maintain their child. I appreciate that it is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention to do that. However, were the amendment to be accepted, it would make life far more difficult for children and for the parent with care than he appreciated earlier.

Mark Harper: I am pleased with those assurances. There is perhaps a reason for pressing the issue. Under the current system one cannot rely on the front-end processes, due to their not being robust in terms of the calculation and the processes, as a result of which the existing sanctions that are available have not been used to the extent that they should have been.

Anne McGuire: I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I have commented on that matter on a couple of occasions. I understand that people want to feel confident that the new process is robust in terms of the calculation as well as the rest of the procedure. I understand where he is coming from, but I am not sure whether, if he presses the amendment, he will get the outcome that he really wants.

Mark Harper: I thank the Under-Secretary for her intervention, although she may have intervened a little too soon, because I am getting to the point where I will agree with her.
I am concerned about ensuring that the court feels able to use and agree to that sanction, if it is appropriate. Given the Under-Secretary’s assurances about writing to Committee members to set out the robust process that will have to be undertaken, the ways in which the court will be able to know that the calculations have been properly undertaken and how the non-resident parent will be able to follow through a number of appeal processes, which means that the court will be able to reach a position from which it is comfortable that the correct outcome has been reached, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Power of parental enforcement
‘If the Commission fails to enforce a maintenance assessment in a reasonable period, the parent with care can request that a liability order be issued which can be enforced independently through the county court.’.

Mark Harper: I will be relatively brief. We probably covered most of the issues that I wanted to raise in the earlier part of this debate. I thank the Under-Secretary for her care in undertaking that discussion and for her generosity this morning.
The clause and the amendments are important, because they go to the heart of how we will enforce the provision. I want to tease out the detail, because we want to ensure that, given the more robust nature of the commission and the processes that it will undertake, we get to a situation where people who do not pay the maintenance that they are meant to pay are pursued by the commission and that all the sanctions available are used to ensure that the children involved are properly supported.
Finally, I shall have a brief word about new clause 4. We discussed this matter at the beginning of the debate on the Bill, when we took evidence. New clause 4 would effectively give the parent with care the ability, where the commission has failed to enforce the maintenance assessment within a reasonable period, to have that liability order enforced independently through the court system. That would provide a little bit of competition for the commission to keep it on its toes, and it would also give the parent with care a little bit more clout in the system to ensure that they are not being deprived of the income that they are entitled to on behalf of the child by any failings in the commission.
The new clause is probably informed more by history than by the more hopeful future, but it is worthy of consideration, and I shall listen with interest to the Under-Secretary’s comments on it and on clause 23.

Danny Alexander: I just want to say a brief word about new clause 4. I can see why CMEC would not regard the notion of competition that the hon. Gentleman has advanced as particularly congenial. Perhaps it is more a recognition of the frustration that a lot of parents with care feel about the way in which the current system operates: they can feel a sense of powerlessness when their case is stuck in the system for months or even years on end with no ability to take independent action to achieve enforcement.
I suspect that this is another opportunity for the Under-Secretary to mention her aspirations for the speed and efficiency with which CMEC should deal with cases in future. Returning to an earlier discussion, which I shall not repeat, I still have doubts whether CMEC will be able to act quickly and efficiently given staffing numbers and IT problems. However, if the system were to remain administratively as it is, I might be tempted to support the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman has said, one suspects that, in a spirit of hopefulness, it is not a matter on which to divide the Committee.

Anne McGuire: I shall not go over the ground that we have already covered. Suffice to say that the collection and enforcement powers in clauses 19 to 28 are being introduced to provide a faster and more streamlined enforcement process. Much of that will be achieved by giving the commission administrative powers—for example, the powers to deduct money from bank accounts and to remove passports.
Can I deal with the issue about “competition” between the parent with care and the commission? It is a slightly unfortunate use of the word “competition.” These issues are not straightforward and often more than one family is involved. I will highlight that point with an example: the non-resident parent has one child with parent with care A, another child with parent with care B and supports two children of his own with his present partner. To be honest with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, if, in such a situation, we were to allow a parent to pursue an independent action, that parenet would obviously see it as perfectly legitimate. However, if parent A were to say that three other children were involved in the family scenario, we would almost be in the position of having, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, competing ways in which the powers would be enacted. It would be unfortunate if, because one parent wanted to pursue the matter through the courts, the commission was not able to take into account the situation of the three other children in that family.

Mark Harper: The new clause was deliberately drafted to address the enforcement of the maintenance assessment. What the Minister has said about the complexity of family arrangements should be taken into account when the maintenance assessment is done. The new clause is about what happens once the parent with care gets that assessment. If the commission fails to enforce the assessment within a reasonable time, the parent with care can get it enforced. The new clause is not about getting the maintenance assessment done for the parent with care; it is about taking into account the complexity of other family arrangements once the assessment has been completed.

Anne McGuire: Let me put it another way. If the commission and a parent with care had concurrent or interchangeable abilities of enforcement, there would be a risk of overlap and duplication that would cause confusion and increase costs. Enabling parents with care to enforce the commissioner’s maintenance assessments might potentially provide the commission with a perverse incentive to divest itself of the most difficult cases, leaving parents with care to pursue a route through legal aid or to meet the costs of enforcement themselves.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that it is possible—indeed, it might be quite common—to envisage a scenario in which there is a series of private arrangements in relation to some children that operates concurrently with a CMEC arrangement in relation to other children, where there is a different non-resident parent? The question of overlapping jurisdiction cannot be eliminated by the concerns that she has expressed.

Anne McGuire: As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean has highlighted, the issue relates to the lack of confidence that has been built up over many years. We have all seen situations in which the parent with care, with eminent justification, has felt that reasonable and timely action has not been taken to get the maintenance orders. Given all the discussions that we have had, we are confident that the commission will take enforcement action within a reasonable time. That should make it unlikely that the parent with care will feel the need to take independent enforcement action through the county court. However, there is a problem of overlapping and duplication, and we must recognise that the frustrations that have built up in the current situation often relate to the fact that it seems to take for ever and a day to get a proper maintenance calculation. Obviously, with the voluntary agreements and the changes that we have made, we will be cutting through some of those difficulties, and I am not sure that the new clause would enhance the power of parents under the new commission. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 4 to a vote.

Mark Harper: The Under-Secretary has conceded that the intention of the Government, and the commission when it is set up, will be to enforce maintenance assessments in a reasonable period. Assuming that the commission fulfils that desire, the new clause would have no effect, because the parent with care would be unable to exercise that power. The parent with care would only be able to exercise that power if the commission failed, so I cannot see that the new clause would do any harm. Perhaps competition is not the right word, but giving the commission an incentive to get its act together and allowing pressure to be applied from outside might be helpful, so allowing the Committee to decide on the new clause would not be a bad thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clauses 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Disqualification for holding or obtaining travel authorisation

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 25, page 18, line 18, leave out from ‘may’ to ‘a’ and insert
‘apply to the court for an order to disqualify’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 108, in clause 25, page 18, line 18, leave out ‘make an order’ and insert
‘apply to the court for an order’.

Danny Alexander: The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government on the reasons for the range of different levels of appeal that are allowed in the Bill. It relates to the intervention by the hon. Member for Angus on an earlier clause. The current CSA is unable to take enforcement action, other than placing a deduction of earnings order, without applying to the magistrates court for a liability order. If that fails, the CSA can then apply to the courts for a charging order against the non-resident parent’s property, for example.
As the Bill stands, CMEC will be able to apply administrative enforcement—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Danny Alexander: As I said, the amendment would probe the difference between the various enforcement powers in this and later clauses in relation to the level to which CMEC must go to implement its powers.
Clause 25, on the disqualification for holding or obtaining travel authorisation—for example, a passport—relates to an administrative power. However, a later clause about driving licences requires CMEC to apply to the court for an order. The amendment would insert the requirement for an application to be made to a court for an order in the case of a passport. Why have the Government not been consistent on whether sanctions can be pursued administratively by CMEC or whether a court order should be sought in all cases? Given that these are all powers that relate to enforcement procedures, at least an explanation of why the different levels of sanction, or approval, must be sought before these powers can be implemented is warranted. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Mark Harper: I shall be brief, because the hon. Gentleman has discussed most of the relevant issues. I simply add one point. He has sought an explanation from the Government. Given our discussion about appeals processes and sanctions, one of the points raised during our discussion of clause 23 was that there is no sense in the sanctions part of the Bill and in being able to pursue sanctions in a different way. Since one has to apply to the court to take away a driving licence, it does not seem sensible that one should not have to apply to the court to take away a travel document. It would make sense to treat those documents in the same way and have a consistent set of processes.
I agree with hon. Gentleman and it will be interesting to hear the Government’s explanation about why there is a difference. If there is not a good reason, it would be helpful if the Committee could be asked to express a view.

James Plaskitt: It’s back to bad cop.
May I clarify a couple of points from previous debates on which I had promised to come back to the Committee? The first relates to the enforcement of fees that may be charged to clients of the commission. The second relates to statistics on income variation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.
On the first point—fees—measures such as deductions from earnings orders and deduction orders are to be used for the collection of maintenance due for arrears and may also be used for the collection of fees only. However, I can categorically state that none of those enforcement measures, which are compliance tools—by that I refer to commitment to prison, curfew orders, and the removal of passports and driving licences—would ever be used solely to enforce fees owed to the commission. Such use of those powers would be disproportionate, and that will be made absolutely clear in secondary legislation.
Secondly, I would like provide a brief note of clarification on an issue that arose earlier. The hon. Gentleman raised a discrepancy between the figures that I had used on income variations among non-resident parents and those made available to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in February 2007. The difference is down to methodology. The figures presented to the Select Committee did not include non-resident parents who had experienced being on benefit in either of the years examined. The figures I quoted include non-resident parents who had experienced such a spell. That is the reason for the discrepancy, and I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Danny Alexander: It reassures me, but I think when this matter was raised in an earlier sitting, the Minister said that he would write to the Committee and set out for the record the disparity, the reasons for it and what the correct figures are so that they can be understood. It would still be helpful in accepting his clarification if that happened. I hope he will agree to do so.

James Plaskitt: I am happy to publish the tables for the sake of completeness.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 108 would prevent the commission from administratively disqualifying the non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation and would require the commission to apply to the court for such an order. I do not consider an application to the court to be necessary or appropriate in this context, and I shall explain why.
Where other more direct methods of enforcement have been tried but maintenance still remains outstanding, we need adequate measures in place to encourage compliance from those who wilfully refuse or culpably neglect to pay maintenance. We believe that in the right cases administratively disqualifying the non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation will encourage that compliance. We recognise that this kind of administrative decision making is a major step, but it is a mark of how determined we are for the commission to move swiftly and effectively in the new enforcement regime. We strongly believe that we need the commission to take this action administratively rather than using the court. There are clear reasons for that.
Based on the experience of other countries, especially the United States and Australia, we believe that the threat of imminent action by the Commission will be more effective in securing compliance than an inevitably drawn out court process, which can be further delayed or frustrated by the non-resident parent’s tactics. This measure will contribute to changing the culture of non-compliance. It will reinforce the message that non-compliance will not be tolerated and that the commission will be able to take swift measures to deal with it. We also recognise the need to have safeguards in place. I want to assure hon. Members that caseworkers will receive a higher level of training and guidance to aid them in the decision-making process. The training and guidance will be developed in advance of the legislation coming into force.
There are also a number of safeguards in the Bill. Administrative orders will be made only when the commission is satisfied that the non-resident parent has demonstrated wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay maintenance. That is the same test as is currently applied by the courts in respect of disqualification for holding or obtaining a driving licence. The Bill makes it clear that the commission must attempt, where appropriate, more direct means of obtaining compliance, such as use of the bailiff, diligence, third-party debt orders or interim charging orders. That is an important safeguard, designed to ensure that administrative orders to disqualify are applied where the non-resident parent will not pay, as opposed to cannot pay.

Danny Alexander: Will the Minister answer the question the other way around? He is making the point that the administrative process is important to allow things to be done swiftly because swift action is more effective. Why have the Government therefore chosen not to allow the administrative process for some of the other sanctions, such as removing a driving licence? I note from a recent written answer that only 17 driving licence disqualification sentences were passed between April 2002 and January 2007. The Minister may think that that makes his point for him. In which case, why has he chosen not to go down the administrative route for other incentives, given that he believes that the administrative process is much more effective?

James Plaskitt: They are, in effect, two different things. In most circumstances, documents that authorise travel will be used in relation to a discretionary activity such as a non-resident parent taking a holiday. We want to take swift action to prevent that if the money that they are using should be spent on maintenance for their children. A driving licence is quite different. If we move swiftly to remove a driving licence, but the non-resident parent still drives, they are effectively driving without insurance and putting not only their own lives at risk but those of others. In that sense, there are wider ramifications in removing the driving licence. It is therefore more appropriate for the courts to do it.
The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps we should be concerned about the numbers. It is important to bear in mind that it is the threat of that that really matters. It encourages compliance. The test is not how many times we have to take the action, but whether the knowledge that the sanction might befall a non-resident parent induces them to be compliant. Where we can make it known that the possibility of imposing the compliance measure will be swift, we think that the impact on compliance will be greater. That is why we see the process as a more appropriate means of going forward than the court route in respect of the travel authorisation, as in Australia.
The only circumstance in which we would want to reflect differently on the process is if either document were essential for the non-resident parent’s employment. Of course, a court would consider not withdrawing a driving licence in such circumstances if so doing prevented the parent from pursuing their employment. If they cannot pursue their employment, they are not in a position to pay maintenance. The same issue applies in respect of travel documents. If the non-resident parent is a regular commuter overseas by virtue of his work, that would come into consideration and the document might not be withdrawn.
The message that we are trying to get across is that the travel authorisation is much more likely to be used than the driving licence in respect of the discretionary activity, and that its use will be headed off swiftly. The knowledge that that power will be available to the commission will encourage compliance. That is the purpose of doing the two things differently. Having been given those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander: I understand what the Minister says about the need to be swift and effective, and that the measure represents a real threat. He is actually saying that he expects the power not to be used much in practice because the threat of it, in itself, will be enough to encourage compliance without having to go through the administrative process.
I welcome what the Minister says about those people for whom a passport is essential to their work. Given that the measure will be implemented through an administrative process, in those cases where CMEC might not be aware that a passport is necessary for work purposes—in spite of investigations that would be carried out, the full information may not be available, although I accept that the Bill allows for appeals—the safeguard in place in a court process would not be available.
I am not sure that amendment No. 64 is the right one to press to a Division, but if the hon. Member for Forest of Dean wishes to do so with his, I would be happy to support him.

Mark Harper: To put it a different way around, there is a clear distinction, in terms of the sanctions, between withdrawing the driving licence and the travel authorisation on the one hand, and those things that affect someone’s liberty on the other. It is right that the commission should have to apply to a court to carry out those sanctions that would affect someone’s liberty.
The travel authorisation and the driving licence options are more alike. The two amendments put the process one way around by suggesting that CMEC should have to apply to the court in the case of travel authorisation and driving licences. Given that the Minister has said that CMEC is trying to use the threat of taking away one of those things to enforce compliance, I would have thought that being able to take away the driving licence would be a much bigger threat and one more likely to enforce compliance than taking away the travel authorisation. In that case, his suggestion that CMEC would have to go to court to do that does not make sense.
I am happy not to press amendment No. 108 to a Division, but I ask the Minister to reflect on Report on whether making the travel and driving licence processes consistent—perhaps making both of them administrative—might make more sense if we are to get proper compliance. I acknowledge what he said about the danger of taking a driving licence away, but, of course, someone would be committing a quite serious criminal offence if they continued to drive, which obviously could be pursued in the normal way.

James Plaskitt: The imperative is not neatness, but effectiveness. We simply want all non-resident parents who are contemplating non-compliance to be aware of the compliance measures that are at the commission’s disposal. I have been trying to emphasise that these are two different types of liberties or rights with different implications. The driving licence proposal inevitably has many third-party implications that the travel authorisation does not. That is a fundamental difference between the two and explains why we think that it is appropriate to go down different routes. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to suggest that we be neat on this matter; we just need to be effective. He should bear in mind the differences between the types of documents and rights that we are dealing with.

Mark Harper: I am still not terribly convinced. We are not arguing for neatness for the sake of neatness, but simply for consistency. We have debated whether, in the modern world, a lot of people depend on travel authorisation for their work and economic prospects, not just for things like holidays. Our proposals are more consistent than the Minister suggests. In terms of getting compliance from people paying maintenance, he should think about whether the commission could administratively remove people’s driving licences. That might be more effective. It might not happen very often, but the threat of it happening quickly might be more effective in enforcing compliance than the powers currently contained in the Bill.

Danny Alexander: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Weir: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 25, page 18, line 24, after ‘unpaid’, insert—
‘(ba) the person from whom the Commission has sought to recover an amount in terms of subsection (1) has been given an opportunity to make representations to the Commission;’.
In a sense, the amendment goes over much of the same ground, but from a slightly different angle, so I will be brief. I will push it to a vote if that is what hon. Members want.
The amendment would place an obligation on the commission to hear a representation from the non-resident parent before it can take the view that he or she has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to make maintenance payments, and so make an order to disqualify them from holding or obtaining travel authorisation. I understand what the Minister said about the difference between the administrative position and the court position, but there does appear to be an internal contradiction.
Under the court procedure, the court must hear from the person concerned. For example, the curfew order in clause 26 specifically says that the court must hear from the person as to their means and
“whether there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the person.”
There is no such provision in respect of administrative action. If something goes to court, it must hear from the person, but with the administrative action, which can have fairly serious consequences, there is no obligation to hear the person’s point of view before action is taken. That is a contradiction.
I appreciate what the Minister said about the travel document sanctions mostly being for people who are going on holiday. There is, therefore, a difference between driving licences and curfew orders, but it has been pointed out that that is not necessarily the case because the passport can be as important a document for many people’s employment as a driving licence. To an extent, that is reflected in clause 25, which states that before making an order under this section, the commission
“shall consider whether the person needs a travel authorisation in order to earn a living.”
The commission must consider that, but it is not obliged to hear from the person themselves. That seems to be a contradiction because the commission must make investigations under the clause. However, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how the commission can make effective investigations without hearing from the person before it takes administrative action.
I wondered whether the argument for administrative action would be that the measure would be used to stop someone on the verge of flight from leaving the country.
However, if the commission has to investigate whether the person needs a passport, that argument seems to fall away. I am interested in why there is a difference. Would it not be better to be consistent? Whether it is administrative action or court action, the person against whom the action is taken at least has the right to make representations before the action is taken.

James Plaskitt: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and shall try to reassure him on the points that he has raised. We agree that it is important that non-resident parents can put across such representations, particularly in order to explain why they have failed to fulfil their statutory maintenance obligations. A non-resident parent will receive advance notice of the commission’s intention to make an order to disqualify them from holding or obtaining travel authorisation, for example. They may put forward representations upon receipt of that notice. Additionally, the non-resident parent will have had opportunities at earlier stages in the process to challenge decisions of the commission, including the amount of maintenance due.
As I have tried to point out, the Bill contains important safeguards. The commission may make an administrative order only when it is satisfied that the non-resident parent has shown wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay maintenance. In addition, where appropriate the commission must have attempted more direct means of obtaining compliance such as the use of bailiffs, diligence, third party debt orders or an interim charging order.
Each case will be treated on its own merits. Considering the facts of the individual case will be crucial in determining whether the non-resident parent has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay maintenance. Additionally, before making an order, the commission will consider whether a non-resident parent needs a travel authorisation in order to earn a living.
When an order is made to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation, the non-resident parent has the option of appealing to the court. If an appeal is filed within 28 days of receiving notice of the order, the order will be suspended and not implemented until the court has had the opportunity to hear the appeal and reconsider the commission’s original decision. Provision is also made for late appeals in the event that the non-resident parent falls to file an appeal within the initial 28-day period.
I hope the hon. Gentleman therefore appreciates that although the measure itself does not give the non-resident parent the opportunity to make representations, the notice of the intention to make an order will invite the non-resident parent to make such representations, if he or she needs to do so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured and will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Weir: I have listened to the Minister, but I am still concerned and a bit confused by what he has said, as the two provisions are pretty much identical. I do not understand why the right is not written into the Bill. Although the Minister has assured me that notice will be given and that there will be a right to make a representation, that right will not carry the same strength as rights in respect of other matters. An appeal after the event could still mean someone being without their travel documents for a considerable number of weeks, even if the appeal is heard swiftly. It may well be that the purpose of removing travel documentation is that it may be done swiftly, perhaps, as the Minister said, when someone is going on holiday. There could be many ramifications, because there is no initial right to make representations, so one may be thrown back on having to deal with an appeal.
I am not satisfied with what the Minister has said, and I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in clause 25, page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (b).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 109, in clause 25, page 19, line 7, leave out from ‘2006’ to end of line 8.
No. 110, in clause 25, page 19, line 8, at end insert—
‘(8) Only the travel authorisation function of the ID card is to be covered by this section.’.

Danny Alexander: Amendment No. 86 would delete the reference at the end of clause 25 to identity cards issued under the Identity Cards Act 2006. The reason for the amendment is twofold. First, as the Committee knows, my hon. Friends and I object strongly to ID cards and think that they are unnecessary, costly and illiberal—for all those reasons, the legislation should be abolished and ID cards should not be introduced. That is part of a wider debate and may be beyond the scope of the Committee.
Secondly, in much of the Government’s discussions about their reasons for introducing ID cards, it was made clear that Ministers see them as not only a travel authorisation, as they relate to this clause, but as potentially having a much wider use concerning access to public services. When Ministers have talked about ID cards, they have talked about their being used to access services at a doctor’s surgery or school. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Angus has said that that is not the case in Scotland, and he is right. He and I agree on that. [Interruption.] There are more than a few things that we agree about. We are interested in the access to medical services that Scots visiting England might have.
The Minister, in his response to earlier amendments, drew distinctions between different levels of incentive or enforcement action and the different levels of protest that would have to be gone through to secure them. He made the point that a driving licence is necessary for someone to carry out their daily life, particularly their working life, whereas a passport might be largely discretionary. His idea that an ID card should simply be seen as a discretionary travel document seems to go against the arguments that his ministerial colleagues have made in favour of ID cards. ID cards have been presented as much more than that, and they could become pervasive in society given the broad sweep of things that an authoritarian Government—such as the one that we have at the moment—might seek to use them for. Above and beyond my objections in principle, I think that practical reasons suggest that it is utterly inappropriate to refer to ID cards in this Bill.

Mark Harper: I have a couple of things to add. The hon. Gentleman has raised the principle, and I want to go on the record and say that the official Opposition do not support the introduction of ID cards, not only for the reasons that he has identified, but because they will be ineffective and useless.
The other two amendments were intended to tease one or two other things out of the Minister. Amendment No. 110 picks up on the point that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey made about the wider functions of the ID card, because there is an inconsistency. Clause 25 specifically mentions the removal of travel authorisation and, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated, Ministers frequently talk about much wider use of ID cards, such as entitlement to a whole range of public services and, most importantly in this context, access to the NHS. Clearly it would be inappropriate if a card were taken away and someone was denied access to health care. Ministers have mentioned such uses for ID cards in the past, and it should therefore be made clear that only the travel authorisation function of the ID card can be withdrawn and not any other functions.
Also, I am not certain why section 7(b) only refers to an ID card
“that records that the person to whom it has been issued is a British citizen.”
There are people who father children and live in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it does not seem sensible to use the enforcement power against only British citizens. It would be appropriate to use it against citizens of other countries who happen to reside here and who have an identity card. Identity cards are currently issued to those who are not British citizens but who reside in the UK. Even if one accepts that ID cards are a good idea, it is illogical to use the enforcement power only against British citizens. I would be grateful if the Minister were to confirm that the only part of the ID card function that we are discussing is travel authorisation and explain how that will be dealt with and the logic behind discussing only British citizens?

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for Forest of Dean for their contributions and their amendments which, I suspect, are inspired by their whole approach towards ID cards. In dealing with their points, I will give a short tutorial on how ID cards would work. I promise that it will be short, that it will answer the questions that have been raised and that it is in order.
To begin with and to be clear, until ID cards are made compulsory, which will happen only after a future Act of Parliament, no individual will be required to produce an ID card in order to access free public services or benefit payments. In the event that such legislation is introduced and approved by Parliament, and in cases in which the commission makes an administrative order of this nature, the Identity and Passport Service will replace the non-resident parent’s ID card with a version that does not record that he or she is a British citizen. The card may be used for access to free public services and benefit payments, but it would not be suitable for travel in Europe.
 Mr. Harper rose—

James Plaskitt: I want to finish this explanation, because it is quite involved. If I go through it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why we are taking our position.
It is not, therefore, necessary to remove ID cards from the definition of travel authorisation or to specify in legislation that only the travel authorisation function of the ID card should be covered by this clause. That is because the existing definition concerning British citizenship is adequate to prevent travel, but still ensures that the non-resident parent has access to free public services and benefit payments, if they are entitled to them.
Furthermore, it should be reiterated that the Identity Cards Act 2006 amended legislation on football banning and travel restriction orders. In situations in which an individual is required to surrender his or her passport under these powers, he or she will, in due course, also have to surrender their ID card, which records that they are a British citizen. Our approach, therefore, is exactly in line with that legislation.
Amendment No. 109 would change the definition of travel authorisation in the Bill, so that it is no longer limited to British nationals. That would allow the commission to disqualify foreign nationals resident in the UK from holding or obtaining an ID card issued under the 2006 Act. The Bill defines travel authorisation in that manner to ensure compatibility with the terms of the 2006 Act and, in particular, with section 39 of the 2006 Act, which deals with the enforcement of football banning and travel restriction orders.
To be clear, foreign nationals resident in the UK are entitled to an ID card. However, only British nationals have a card that states that they are British citizens, and they may use that card for travel purposes in Europe. Under EU freedom of movement regulations, European citizens require documentation that confirms their identity and nationality. The only United Kingdom documents meeting those requirements are passports and ID cards issued to British citizens under the 2006 Act. It is therefore not necessary to amend the definition of “travel authorisation”, since foreign nationals in possession of ID cards issued under the 2006 Act will be unable to use such cards for travel purposes in any event.
Other forms of enforcement, such as curfew orders, may be used in relation to non-resident parents who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom but who are of a different nationality. The commission therefore retains a range of powers to deal with all non-compliant, non-resident parents.
I hope that, having made it clear how the ID card system works and how it relates to these measures, the hon. Gentleman will now feel able to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I do not think that it answered my questions. In fact, it probably prompted more questions than it answered. On that basis, I wish to press amendment No. 86 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Danny Alexander: I should like to make a couple of brief points relating to this clause and to subsequent clauses on enforcement. I will raise them now, with your leave, Mr. Taylor, because they pertain to this clause and may allow me not to raise them in future. I should like to mention the conceptual basis of the enforcement powers that we are considering in respect of both this clause on travel authorisation and later provisions on driving licences and curfews.
On consistency of application, it seems, from the way in which the Minister has described the use of the enforcement powers, that those powers will be tailored as much as possible to the circumstances of the individual. That has been made clear, not least in the previous debate, where we discussed whether someone for whom a passport is necessary for work but a driving licence is not might have their driving licence taken away, and how someone in the reverse circumstances might have their passport taken away. That seems to make a great deal of sense.
I wonder whether the Minister has considered the extent to which that could lead to discrepancies or perceptions of unfairness between individuals. For example, is there a risk of perceived unfairness in respect of two brothers in similar circumstances facing different sanctions applied in relation to child maintenance?

James Plaskitt: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we do not consider the employment circumstances of people in such situations?

Danny Alexander: No. I am asking the Minister to explain further his thinking in this area. His response relates to my second point that the sanctions—incentives to pay is another way in which to describe them—can be applied sequentially. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. For example, if a passport were taken away and that action did not lead to payment, a driving licence could be taken away and sequentially a curfew could be imposed. I hope that, in individual cases, the application of such sanctions would lead to payment. I think that the only sanction that cannot be applied more than once is a commitment to prison. How does the Minister visualise CMEC approaching the use of sanctions in such cases? Does he believe that it might be possible in individual cases to go through the gamut of available sanctions in order to persuade someone to pay? For example, at what point does commitment to prison become part of the process?

Stephen Hesford: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if we just commit such people to prison, we would not have to use the other measures sequentially or otherwise?

Danny Alexander: No. Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. I am genuinely trying to understand the Government’s thinking on the range of administrative and court-based sanctions that are available to persuade someone to pay and how they might work in practice. When someone has not paid, none of us wants to see that person being made to jump through a whole range of hoops, while no payment is made at the end of that process. The Minister might think that that is not an important point, but I am just interested in understanding how the Government see a range of sanctions working, when more than one might have to be applied in a particular case.

James Plaskitt: I will try to help the hon. Gentleman. He is making rather heavy weather of matters. All we are doing with the clause is establishing the full range of compliance measures and adding some to those that currently exist. Attached to each measure is the appropriate route by which it is pursued by the commission and delivered to the non-compliant, non-resident parent. That is the simple essence of what the Bill does. The hon. Gentleman’s approach is tempting me to anticipate a range of individual cases that, as yet, are unknown. For obvious reasons, I shall not do that.
We want to give the commission an array of powers, to set in place the appropriate route for the application of those powers and to ensure that they are effective compliance measures. I am satisfied that the clause does that. Beyond that and to go into the hon. Gentleman’s argument, we would have to consider hypothetical circumstances and individual cases. Of course, it is possible to apply sequential use of the sanctions, with the exception of imprisonment. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to remember all the preliminary steps that have to be taken before the sanctions can be imposed. Preliminary investigations and notices, such as prior notification to non-resident parents of the imminent application of a sanction or compliance measures and appeal rights, must be in place before the sanctions can take effect.
We want non-resident parents, who might be inclined to be non-compliant, to be aware that a considerable array of sanctions might bear down on them and that such a regime encourages compliance. They also need to understand that, when appropriate and having taken due regard of individual circumstances, the commission may be able to move swiftly to implement those sanctions. The more that that is understood, the more likely the sanctions are to have their desired effect of increasing compliance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Power to treat liability as satisfied

Andrew Selous: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in clause 29, page 32, line 26, at end insert—
‘(1A) In circumstances where a person’s liabilities to pay child maintenance result in sums owing to a parent with care, before exercising its powers under subsection (1), the Commission must first obtain the permission of the parent with care in writing.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 121, in clause 29, page 32, line 32, at end insert—
‘(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may include—
(a) provision enabling the Commission in prescribed circumstances to treat liability as satisfied without authorisation from the parent with care; and
(b) provision enabling the parent with care in prescribed circumstances to appeal to the Commission against a decision to treat liability as satisfied.’.
No. 22, in clause 30, page 32, line 37, after ‘(1)’, insert
‘Subject to the permission in writing of any person to whom arrears of child support maintenance are owed,’.
No. 23, in clause 31, page 33, line 5, after ‘(1)’, insert 
‘Subject to the permission in writing of any person to whom arrears of child support maintenance are owed,’.

Andrew Selous: We have reached the part of the Bill that deals with debt-management powers. We had full and strenuous debates earlier in the Committee on the subject of debt. Strong views were expressed, certainly by everyone on the Opposition Benches, with some acknowledgement by the Minister that the issue of debt cuts to the heart of the credibility of the system and that it is important for it to be dealt with fairly and not to be brushed under the carpet. Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23, which I will discuss, deal with that subject in particular.
Amendment No. 21 relates to cases where a non-resident parent has made payments on behalf of their children, which is not the child maintenance payments transferred to the parent with care that they are required to pay, and deals with how CMEC will treat those payments, if there is an application to count them against the child maintenance payments that the non-resident parent should have paid. The amendment states that the commission must first obtain the permission of the parent with care in writing before agreeing to exercise its powers under clause 29(1). That may sound a little dry, but let me illustrate the point with a constituency case. It is a case that got so serious that I brought the mother concerned, the parent with care, to see the Minister. I do not know whether he remembers that case.
 Mr. Plaskitt indicated assent.

Andrew Selous: The Minister was gracious enough to see me, which I appreciated. Although I have not heard from that particular constituent for a while, which I take as good news, I am pleased to tell him that the case has been solved.
That particular parent with care regularly came to my surgery to tell me how her ex-husband had bought a tent or a guitar for his children. He was not paying any maintenance, but he bought the children a tent, a guitar, new trainers or a trip to Thorpe Park, when they had perfectly serviceable trainers and probably needed a new pair of school shoes. His argument to the mother was to say quite bluntly, “Well, I’ve made payments. I’ve given money to the children. I’ve spent my money.” He was not paying the maintenance that he was required to, week by week, which she needed to feed and clothe the children, to put new school shoes on their feet and so on. I hope that that case illustrates what we are discussing.
I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the Minister or the staff of the commission, but it would be a real assurance to parents with care if the Bill stated that they had to agree to any offsetting of payments. There may be cases in which non-resident parents have made payments in lieu of child maintenance payments which the parent with care is happy to have offset against the payments that should have been made according to the CSA at present and CMEC in future. It is important that there is written permission from the parent with care before that offsetting is agreed.
Amendment No. 22, which relates to clause 30 rather than to clause 29, refers to the power of CMEC to accept part payment of arrears in full and final settlement. Again, the amendment tries to set out that there may be circumstances where that is the right thing to do, but it should happen only with the express, written agreement of any person to whom arrears of child support maintenance are owed. That does not seem to be too much to ask, and I shall refer shortly to some of the evidence given by Lord McKenzie, the Minister’s colleague in another place.
Amendment No. 23, which relates to clause 31, deals with what we would like to see happen when the commission decides to write off arrears of child maintenance. There may be occasions when the parent with care is perfectly happy for that to happen, given the particular circumstances of that case. Given that it is money owed in most cases to the mother and, most importantly, to the children, it is vital to have the written permission of anyone to whom arrears of child support maintenance are owed.
At our first sitting, Lord McKenzie said:
“But it is clear that we would only write off where we had the consent of the parent with care, and only when the commission recommended to the parent with care that it might be appropriate. So any inappropriate offers would be screened out by the commission, and only in those circumstances and specifically with the consent of the parent with care would the debt be written off.”——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 1007; c. 34.]
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 simply seek to put that assurance, given freely by the Minister, in the Bill.

Michael Weir: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he also note what Stephen Geraghty, chief executive of the CSA, said in response to question No. 85? He made it clear that the agency was considering coming to an agreement and writing off some of that debt. It is not clear from that or from the Bill whether that could be done with only the consent of the parent with care. There is a contradiction in the evidence, even with the assurance given at that sitting.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always, for carefully following what has been said. He is right to draw the Committee’s attention to that fact. It is important to put on the record at this stage that debt is owed to parents with care and debt is also owed to the Secretary of State. It is important that we are clear about that. All debt is not the same. There will be circumstances in which debt owed to the Secretary of State should perhaps be written off because it is uncollectible and it would be a figment of accounting imagination to put it down on a balance sheet as something that the Government will receive.
The hon. Gentleman is right to press me on the issue of debt, and he puts his finger on an important point. There are a number of other questions that I shall ask the Minister just to cover this matter. It would help if he could give the Committee an update on the issue of debt. If he cannot do so now, will he kindly ask his officials to draft a letter to members of the Committee? 
I ask that because the latest figures that we have on debt come from the 2005-06 CSA annual report. It is usual practice for the annual report to be published before the summer recess, but that did not happen this year. We are discussing this subject rather blind and without the latest figures. At the very least we should have the information on Report—I would have liked to have it now. I hope that the breakdown of figures will provide a split between old-system debt and new-system debt, with a further split into uncollectible or possibly uncollectible debt, as opposed to collectible. I believe that to be the format in which the information has previously been given, and we are entitled to receive that information given the large sums involved. 
I understand that £760 million of debt is not being pursued in England and Wales by the agency’s enforcement directorate because it is more than six years old and cannot be subject to a liability order in the courts. The National Audit Office made that point. If there is debt that CMEC views as “uncollectible”, it is important that the parents with care to whom that debt is owed are informed if CMEC is not going to pursue collection of it.
Those are important points that cut to the heart of the system’s credibility. In recent years, I have said to a number of my constituents that the money owed to them is a debt, it stays on the ledger until it is paid back and they can be sure that that will happen. I want to continue to give that reassurance to my constituents. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, and in particular to his comments in respect of amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which, as far as I can see, put in writing exactly what Lord McKenzie said to us in Committee on 17 July.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has made most of the important points, so I will not go on for long. For many years, debt and arrears have been huge problems hanging over the system. The most recent figure that we have, which, as he says, is out of date, suggests that the total amount of debt is now £3.5 billion, of which a significant proportion is regarded by the CSA as uncollectible.
It should be a matter of concern to all members of the Committee that the CSA annual report has been delayed for so long. It should have been published in July and would have provided us with a lot of relevant information. The publication was rumoured to have been planned as soon as Parliament returned, but I understand that it has been delayed for a further two or three weeks. If that is the case, it unhappily means that the information contained in the report will not be available for any Committee stages of the legislation.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of what he has just said, it might be fair to ask the Ministers here to ensure that the report is provided to hon. Members before Report?

Danny Alexander: In addition to his many good qualities, the hon. Gentleman has shown the power of foresight. I was going to make that point. The Minister must do everything possible to ensure that that information is available to the House before the Commons stages are completed. There should be an explanation as to the reasons for the delay. The Bill is being debated now, and that information would have been useful, particularly in the context of the amendments.
Cynics might suggest that the report contains information that is unwelcome from the Government’s point of view. I do not know whether that is true. Perhaps it contains happy information from their point of view. If the latter is true, I am surprised that more encouragement has not been offered to publish it before the Commons stages of the Bill are finished. None the less, it is important that we have the correct factual information to help us understand what the provisions would mean. I hope that the Minister will explain what has happened and when matters will be set back in their proper order.
The amendments, all of which I support, relate to the way in which the parent with care should be involved in any decisions relating to writing off debt or arrears that they might be owed. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire rightly distinguished between that and debt owed to the Secretary of State. We are talking about arrears owed to the parent with care. The point made in amendments Nos. 21 to 23, which is that the parent with care should have some involvement and ability to be involved in those decisions, is a powerful one given that people may have been waiting for a considerable period for the CSA to pursue their case and get the money that they are owed. For a debt to be written off without their involvement or say so would add insult to injury.
Amendment No. 121 approaches the matter in the same spirit as amendments Nos. 21 to 23, but somewhat differently, in that it would require regulations to be made to enable the commission to prescribe circumstances in which liability would be regarded as satisfied without the permission of the parent with care and would also provide for that parent to have a right of appeal in those circumstances, thereby achieving the same outcome in a different way by allowing the parent with care a chance to appeal before a debt or arrears are written off. Again, that would allow their involvement in such cases.
I hope that the Minister will consider favourably this group of amendments and explain how the Government intend to approach the involvement of the parent with care, particularly in respect of those sorts of decisions.

Michael Weir: This is a difficult area. I know from cases in my surgery that many women—they are usually women—have spent many years trying to get money through the Child Support Agency and vast arrears have built up over that time. It would be completely inequitable if those arrears were written off without the consent of the parent with care because of the changeover between agencies. Many of those involved will say, “I’ve done without things for years, and so have my children, because I can’t get the payments out of them.” Sometimes, that can be many thousands of pounds.
I am concerned about this, although I understand what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire said about the difference between debt due to parents with care and debt due, effectively, to the Treasury. Stephen Geraghty said:
“Experience says that most parents with care will...Take a reasonable sum.”——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c. 35.]
There is clearly an intention to get something and to write off some of the debt. That is done with the consent of the parent with care. I understand the reasoning for that. If I got half of what I was due or a proportion of it, that would be better than nothing, and I can understand that happening if it is done properly, but I would be much more concerned if the CSA, CMEC or whatever decided on the proportion without the consent of the parent with care. There is a difficult balance to be struck.
The other point that strikes me—it was canvassed in the evidence-taking session in Question 84—concerns the problem of the quantification of the arrears in some old cases. In some cases, where interim assessments were imposed in the first instance and very large arrears grew up fairly quickly, those were made at the top rate, basically as a punishment for people who would not give the information to the agency. Will the Minister say what is the intention regarding old cases where those responsible might be looking at writing off debt? Will they consider how the debt arose? Will any adjustment be made for cases where a large amount of arrears was put in place due to a notional interim assessment because the non-resident parent was not giving the information to the agency? I am not suggesting that those should simply be written off——the interim assessment is there for a reason——but I would like some information on how the Minister intends to deal with such cases.

Anne McGuire: I appreciate that this is a difficult issue. Situations where money is owed to the parent with care and, sometimes, as the hon. Member for Angus pointed out, to the non-resident parent, have featured highly in our constituency activity for some years. I will deal with some of the specific questions on debt.
It is not a secret that £3.5 billion is owed to the CSA and that is increasing at a rate of £20 million a month. As we all know, that debt has accrued over 14 years. It is not something that has happened over the last couple of years or, indeed, over the past 10 years. Effectively, it has happened since the inception of the agency, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. As we all know, there are some non-resident parents who do their utmost to avoid paying anything towards the upkeep of their children.
There was almost a suggestion creeping in that the current agency is going soft on the collection of debt. That is not the case. The CSA has improved its recovery of debt as part of the operational improvement plan and is committed to recovering over £200 million of historic debt by 2009. In the year to June 2007, it collected or arranged an additional £63 million of maintenance compared with the previous 12-month period. As part of that plan, in August 2006 the agency began contracting out the collection of debt to a private debt collection agency. It has also achieved success by allowing payments by credit and debit cards: £11.3 million has been collected in that way. The child maintenance enforcement campaigns aim to alert parents who do not pay child maintenance to the fact that the agency is determined to enforce compliance.

Andrew Selous: I am listening carefully and am grateful to the Minister for her assurance about the £200 million of debt that the agency is actively pursuing. So far, she has not contradicted what I said about the £760 million of debt that is not being pursued because it is over six years old. I do not know if she is going to refer to that, but I will be grateful if she does.

Anne McGuire: As far as I understand it, that debt is still recoverable. If it is not, I am sure that somebody will advise me in the next 30 seconds. I understand that it is recoverable and is still, where appropriate, active on our books.

Andrew Selous: I was asking not whether it is technically still legally recoverable, but what current active measures are being taken. There is a worry that some of this debt has effectively been parked——it is still legally owed but nothing active is happening about it. The Minister referred only to £200 million of debt that is actively being pursued.

Anne McGuire: We must get our terminology right. The debt is recoverable, but that is not enforceable through the courts. That is the difference and is the subtlety in the issue. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for chapter and verse on whether we are going to pursue x number of people who have had debts for more than six years, I will have to come back to him. I am saying to the Committee that we recognise that the collection of debt is an important issue for the CSA. We are not waiting until CMEC is active. We are currently pursuing debt, but we have to recognise that an historic debt has built up over 14 years.

Danny Alexander: Before the Minister leaves the statistical question, I am trying to understand the figure she gave us of more than £200 million over a three-year period. She said that the target for collection of debt was £213 million under the operational improvement plan and, separately, that new debt was building up at a rate of £20 million a month. That would suggest that in the period during which the £213 million is collected, a further £360 million of debt will have built up, so even under the operational improvement plan net debt will still be rising. Can she confirm that that is the case?

Anne McGuire: We are trying to pull so many threads together that it is sometimes difficult to understand where we are going in respect of debt. We are estimating that potentially it could increase at £20 million a month. Our recovery systems for the debt that is currently accruing are far more robust than those that the CSA operated in the past, which allowed the accumulation of debt to the £3.5 billion figure that we spoke about. Therefore, I am not sure whether we can do the sharp calculation that the hon. Gentleman identified.
There is nothing sinister in the agency’s annual report and accounts and we are not sitting on it. It is not under a table because we do not want to share it with the Committee. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that it is not currently within our jurisdiction or within the competence of the NAO, which concluded that further work on the CSA’s client funds account needed to be done. That enabled the agency to complete the client funds account, which is now with the NAO for consideration in its report. The agency will lay the annual report and accounts in the House of Commons Library as soon as it is completed. I hope that hon. Members will understand that it is currently with the NAO and that we are working with the NAO on this.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions that have been raised and, if I have not, I hope I will do so in my comments. It may assist the Committee if I explain what the clause aims to achieve. There are two limbs to the clause. In the first, we intend the commission to use the discretionary power to offset maintenance liabilities between parents of the same child. It is envisaged that that will happen mainly in what we refer to as role reversal cases, where a child is living with one parent but later goes to live with another parent. The parent with care and the non-resident parent swap roles, a scenario with which many of us are familiar.
It may also be used in split-care cases, where both parents are caring for at least one qualifying child; each parent is a parent with care and each is a non-resident parent, not the scenario that was painted earlier this week when a child went to stay with the non-resident parent for a couple of days a week. In this case the parents are jointly caring for the child and are recognised as doing so.
Clause 29 will allow the commission the discretion to offset any arrears owed by one parent against the liability of the other. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire highlighted that issue as being one of particular frustration. It is not often that I would quote from The Mail on Sunday, but there we are, things change. In a recent article by the readers’ champion, a Mrs. J.W., whoever she was, highlighted the very issue that the hon. Gentleman was discussing. In that case, two parents owed money to each other. One owed £534, the ex-husband owed £913, and we had no powers to offset those two liabilities against each other. It was incredibly frustrating and, to be frank, it was difficult to understand why we could not off-set that amount, so we are alert to that situation.
I shall come back to the two scenarios that I highlighted. The provision must be exercised with due regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by the decision. Amendment No. 21 would mean that, for role reversal cases, the commission would only be able to off-set those liabilities with the agreement of the current parent with care. For split-care cases, the commission would need the agreement of both parents because both are the parents with care. In some respects, we would see a situation where the agreement would be needed from the parent who had been failing to meet their maintenance liability in the first place. If they were failing to meet their liability as the non-resident parent or as the parent with the higher maintenance calculation, it is reasonable to assume that they might not agree to off-setting.
In all our deliberations, we have understood that we are dealing with difficult personal circumstances and attitudes towards the payment of maintenance. I think, with the greatest respect, that the provision would defeat the whole purpose of the clause and that accepting amendment No. 121 would have a similar effect, because only in certain specified circumstances would the commission be able to off-set liabilities without the agreement of the non-compliant parent.
I will give some comfort to colleagues in a moment. I suggest to the Committee that the commission must be given the freedom to exercise its discretion in those cases. The most important considerations should not be the wishes of the previously non-compliant parents, but the welfare of the children affected by the decision. The commission will not use the off-setting powers if it considers that that would put the welfare of children at risk. An example would be if the current parent with care has a low income—a situation that we could all understand. Legislating for different rules to apply in specific circumstances, as suggested in amendment No. 121, would limit the commission’s discretion and may, in some circumstances, lead to gross unfairness.
I shall deal with the second limb of clause 29. The intention is for the commission to use that discretionary power to offset payments made by the non-resident parent to third parties against their maintenance liability, whether that would be a pair of trainers or trips to the cinema—the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. That is intended to cover situations where a non-resident parent, from time to time or perhaps as a one-off, makes a payment that may be seen as a benefit to the child. An example would be the payment of an urgent utility bill on behalf of the parent with care before the maintenance payment is due. Currently, when that happens, the non-resident parent would still be legally required to pay the full amount of maintenance in addition to that payment, thereby being forced to meet the liability twice, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted.
We want to allow the Commission the flexibility and discretion to off-set such a payment against the maintenance liability. However, regulations—hon. Members should have received them in their briefing packs—will specify that the parent with care must have agreed to the payment being made in the first place. Therefore, the parent with care still has the right to decide whether to accept that payment when it can be offset. It will then be up to the commission to decide whether to off-set the payment against the non-resident parent’s maintenance liability.
It would not be appropriate to seek the parent with care’s agreement for the payment to be offset when they have already agreed to the payment being made in the first place. If there is an agreement to pay the electricity bill, it would not be fair for that parent with care, who has already agreed to the payment being made, to withhold their permission for that to be offset in those circumstances. I fully accept the spontaneous sort of circumstances that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire highlighted about trips to the zoo and the cinema and all the rest of it.
Amendment No. 121 also seeks appeal rights in relation to offsetting mutual liabilities. Regulations will set out the parameters within which the commission can exercise its discretion. The most important consideration will be the welfare of any children affected by the decision. The commission will, of course, discuss with the parent with care the implication of offsetting before making its decision and will take into account any representations she makes that the welfare of her child or children may be put at risk.
It would not be appropriate to allow appeal rights in respect of any discretionary decisions, each one of which will require the commission to balance the needs of both parents and all children affected. Providing an appeal right is likely to create delay and a layer of complication and bureaucracy which this provision is designed to overcome. Any delay resulting from an appeal may slow down the flow of maintenance in some cases. Potentially, we could end up in a scenario similar to the one that we have all had to face over many years.
Amendment No. 22 relates to clause 30. The clause gives the commission the power to accept part payment of arrears in full and final satisfaction. The issue of parental consent is somewhat different in this case. Our intention is that where the debt is due to be paid to the parent with care, the decision to accept a lesser amount will only be taken with the agreement of the parent with care. Again, agreement is locked into the system. Regulations underpinning the power will be set out in detail, showing how negotiated settlements are to work in practice, and will be affirmative.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to hear the Minister’s reassurances, which I accept at face value. I am just puzzled why this matter should be dealt with in regulation rather than in the Bill. It has been said to me, so I will say it to her, that dealing with it in regulation could make it easier at a later stage to revoke or water down the obligation to seek the parent with care’s permission. If she addresses that point, I will be fully satisfied.

Anne McGuire: The issue has always been whether it is appropriate to put discretionary inflexible powers in the Bill. That sort of operational issue is normally, and effectively, dealt with in legislation. As I have said, the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that we are not getting into challenging whether it is the Government’s intention to water down those regulations. I will do the hon. Gentleman the credit of saying that I suspect that that would not be the position of his party if and when—God help us!—it ever gets into power. I hope that he can understand that we are not going to water down the regulations and that he accepts that at face value. I am never sure, Mr. Taylor, whether or not accepting something at face value is an insult or a compliment. Perhaps he could explain that to me afterwards.
The requirement to obtain consent is part of the process. However, it is not entirely straightforward, as hon. Members will know if they have read the draft regulations. One example is the case in which the person has been on benefit for only part of the period to which the arrears relate. In such cases, the regulations will require consent only where the amount recovered is insufficient to cover the amount that the parent with care is owed. Therefore, someone can have a mixed stream of income over the period of time. We consider that these matters are too complicated to be dealt with in primary legislation and are best left to regulations because we can build in the sort of flexibility that is needed.
It is right that the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise such matters, and for that reason I am pleased to confirm yet again that the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I am going on, but it is a complicated set of circumstances.
Amendment No. 23 relates to clause 31 and the
“Power to write off arrears.”
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which the debt can be extinguished. It is intended that such circumstances should include the parent with care requesting that arrears owed to them should no longer be enforced because of, for example, a reconciliation with the non-resident parent or the death or adoption of the child. Again, we must consider specific circumstances.
Amendment No. 23 would place in the Bill a requirement to obtain the consent of the parent with care in cases when debt was due to be written off and the debt was due to the parent with care. The power to write off debt is essentially a tidying-up exercise that the commission will use in limited circumstances. As the draft regulations make clear, those will include circumstances in which the parent with care has asked the commission to cease acting—for example, when the parties have reconciled and the parent with care does not want the debt recovered, or when the parent with care or non-resident parent has died and the opportunity to recover the arrears has passed.
Clearly, there are circumstances in which the consent of the parent with care would not be appropriate, such as when a non-resident parent has died and it is not possible to recover the debt from the estate. I understand, in fact, that the total amount of debt that has accrued in such cases is significant. It would make no sense for that sum to continue to sit in the agency’s accounts and, effectively, be an irrecoverable bookkeeping figure. It is not the intention to write off debt that the parent with care wants recovered. I want to make that point clear to the Committee because I know that it has caused concern and that it has been thought that somehow we would bypass the parent with care. That is not our intention. However, as I have said, there will be cases when it is not appropriate to obtain that consent.
I hope that the Committee will accept that the safeguards are sufficient to protect the interests of the parent with care. I have confirmed that during the sitting. Furthermore, as provided for in the primary power, the commission can only write off debt if it seems to it that it will be unfair or otherwise inappropriate to enforce liability in respect of the arrears.
I shall not apologise for what has been a pretty lengthy consideration of the measures, because they are quite complicated. I want the Committee to have confidence that the rights, interests and wishes of the parent with care will be taken into account at all points in the procedure and that that is consistent with the underlying principle of the Bill, which is that we should operate at all times in the best interests of the child.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for her full and lengthy explanation. I am reassured by it. She mentioned the draft regulations that have been sent to members of the Committee. Her words are on the record, and I know that they will guide the commission, as is the custom.
I have two brief requests that have arisen from the debate. I do not know whether the hon. Lady can accede to them. She mentioned the £760 million debt. I should be grateful if she would write to me and other members of the Committee to clarify what action the CSA is taking in that regard. I did not feel that we had quite got to the bottom of the matter.
As for the National Audit Office, I shall be dropping a line to Sir John Bourn to ask if there is any way in which he can instruct his officials to make sure that the annual report is ready by the time that the Bill is debated on Report. If Ministers were willing to take such action, too, I should be grateful because it would be helpful.

Anne McGuire: I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman and others members of the Committee that I shall write to them about the £760 million debt. We should remember that we are discussing a carry-over Bill, so Parliament will have a long time in which to consider it. The National Audit Office will do what it has to do, but I am sure that Sir John Bourn will receive his letter with interest.

Andrew Selous: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: With this we will take new clause 20—Basic level of child maintenance support—
‘The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a basic level of child support maintenance support to be sought by the Commission—
(a) where the care of a child has been transferred to a parent who has arrears outstanding to the Commission; and
(b) where this person would otherwise have receipt of maintenance offset against those arrears.’.

Danny Alexander: The new clause raises an important point that relates to the useful, important and helpful remarks that the Minister just made. I am grateful to her for them. It covers a specific set of cases where a child has been transferred to the care of a parent who has arrears outstanding to the commission. It does not relate to cases where there are arrears on both sides, but where the new parent with care has arrears to what has become the non-resident parent, when they could also have expected to have been in receipt of maintenance, had there been no arrears.
The new clause seeks to allow in those cases for the commission to specify a basic level of maintenance. I am thinking of circumstances in which, for example, the new parent with care is on benefit, and a basic level of maintenance would, in most cases, be reduced from what otherwise might be awarded were there not debt involved, but a basic level of maintenance might be necessary to ensure that the child is not living in poverty. That, after all, is one of the Bill’s objectives.
The Minister rightly reminded us that the welfare of the child must remain paramount in all cases. A basic level of child maintenance, which might amount to a partial rather than a full offsetting, could be allowed to protect the interests of the child. The new clause would do that, and I would be grateful to the Minister if she could explain how, in that small, specific, but none the less important set of cases, the requirement to look after the welfare of the child could be maintained.

Anne McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause, which I trust is a probing one.
We have already considered to a certain extent the purpose of clause 29. We believe that it takes a sensible approach, which responds to the needs and circumstances of individuals. It is our intention to set out the parameters within which the commission may exercise its discretion in regulations. For example, we do not intend offsetting to take place if the parent with care is living on a low income and is particularly reliant on child maintenance, which may cover some of the issues raised.
The new clause applies to the first limb of the provision which will allow the commission to offset mutual liabilities between parents. I suggest that prescribing a basic amount of maintenance to be protected from offsetting, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would tie the commission into adopting a blanket approach and, dare I say it, introduce layers of complexity. That would not be our intention.
As most colleagues will recognise, maintenance liabilities can vary considerably, depending on the income level of the non-resident parent. We would have to take account of that in deciding on an amount to protect. In some cases, the liability can be as low as £5 per week. Prescribing liability in the Bill would not be a particularly helpful route. We do not believe that setting a common basic level is the best way to protect the welfare of children or address the different circumstances of individuals. A fairer way is to take account of the income of the parent with care, who is due to receive the maintenance, because that would be an indication of the impact on the child.
We are still working on the specific details of the regulations. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that in doing so the welfare of the child or children is uppermost in our minds. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we will cover the point, although not in the way that he wants, which is to see it in primary legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. David.]

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday 16 October at half-past Ten o’clock.